NOVEMber 2008 issue
|
Compliance
How APEGGA Sources and Processes Compliance Cases
Editor’s Note: The Compliance Department’s job is to enforce the right-to-practice and right-to-title provisions of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act. The department’s focus, therefore, is on individuals and companies that are not registered — those that may be, inadvertently or otherwise, holding themselves out as professional members or practicing the professions illegally.
This month, the usual statistical round up in the space is replaced with the following article on how cases are found and handled.
The Compliance Department seeks to ensure that non-registered or non-qualified persons (including corporations) do not engage in the practice of engineering, geology or geophysics or hold themselves out as qualified to engage in the practice of these professions. The Compliance Department generates files in a variety of ways.
Files may be started reactively, as a result of a complaint from either an APEGGA member or a member of the public, or proactively. The administrative team in the Compliance Department has a number of sources that it regularly monitors for offenders: the Alberta Gazette, public advertising, websites such as Workopolis and Yellow Pages directories.
The Compliance Department encourages APEGGA members to be aware of and report violations in the workplace. Because we are dealing with non-members, we are not obligated to and do not reveal the source of a contact received from an APEGGA member or a member of the public.
The Compliance Department’s administrative team handles the bulk of the files generated via a carefully time-managed system of formal letters and personal contact to inform individuals or companies of transgressions against the EGGP Act. Should constructive feedback not be received or if there is disagreement on whether an activity constitutes the practice of engineering, geology or geophysics, the administrative team will look at other tacks.
The team would first consult Dave Todd, P.Eng., Director, Compliance, or Frank Perich, P.Eng., Assistant Director, Compliance. Then, depending upon the complexity, it may send the file off for an opinion from a member of the APEGGA Enforcement Review Committee or from a compliance consultant.
If a consultant is involved, the file normally requires more intense investigation with possible dialogue or even a site visit. The Compliance Department currently employs two part-time compliance consultants — one for engineering, the other for geoscience.
The ultimate objective is to prepare a formal decision-making process or DMP. A DMP is a simple yet rigorous tool developed by the Enforcement Review Committee. It results in the user comparing the activities in question to the specific activities listed in the definitions in the EGGP Act and answering two questions.
For engineering, those questions are
1. Is or does the activity being considered constitute the reporting on, advising on, evaluating, designing, preparing plans and specifications for, directing the construction of, directing the technical inspection of, directing the maintenance of, directing the operation of any structure, work, process that is aimed at the discovery, development, utilization, other of matter, materials, energy for the use, convenience of humans?
2. Is or does the aforesaid activity require the professional application of math, chemistry, physics or a related applied subject?
The parts in italics represent aspects the user of the DMP must determine. First, an activity is identified (“the activity being considered”) based on the available information (from a complainant or from a company’s website, a site visit, etc.). Then, the activity is evaluated as to whether it involves the criteria set out in Question 1.
Having formulated the first part of Question 2, the user must then determine whether the activity requires the listed applications in a professional sense.
Part of the DMP investigation is also confirming that the activity is not exempted by the EGGP Act.
If the answer to both DMP questions is yes, we conclude that the individual or company is engaged in the practice of engineering and that a permit, individual registration or both are required. When a website or other information has led to the conclusion that a company is practicing, but it actually isn’t, the company will be asked to remove any statements that make the implication. Then we close the file.
In most cases, if a DMP concludes that a company is engaged in the practice of engineering, geology or geophysics and the company has confirmed its activities as such, the company will proceed to obtain a permit to practice and the file will be closed.
Files sometimes involve activities not easily evaluated and individuals or companies not willing to comply. These are placed on the meeting agenda of the Enforcement Review Committee.
The ERC has been entrusted by APEGGA Council to carry out those activities necessary to ensure compliance with several areas of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act. These are Part 1, covering scope of practice, Part 7, covering registered professional technologists, and the appendix to the regulation.
The ERC’s two main objectives are
1. To protect the public from being misled by unqualified and unregistered persons, and
2. To preserve for the benefit of APEGGA members, the value of the reserved scope of practice and reserved title.
The ERC is a multi-disciplinary group of engineers, geologists and geophysicists from throughout the province. It meets via teleconference between Calgary and Edmonton about every two months.
Although the Compliance Department prefers to carry out its mandate through the process of “gentle persuasion,” there are a number of mechanisms that enable the ERC to compel compliance with the act in carrying out enforcement activities. Some of these are expressly contained in the EGGP Act.
Mechanisms available to the ERC include
-
laying a complaint with the Crown Prosecutor’s Office and seeking prosecution in provincial court under Section 98 of the act
-
initiating its own civil court proceedings under Section 9 to seek an injunction to prohibit the non-registered person from violating Part 1 (Scope of Practice) of the act
-
laying a complaint with Corporate Registry under the Business Corporations Act in the case of corporations violating the reserved title provisions.
Report a Violation
If you are aware of practice or title violations and you are able to provide evidence (reports, letters, business cards, websites, etc.), we encourage you to contact Frank Perich, P.Eng., Assistant Director, Compliance, at fperich@apegga.org. Because the Compliance Department deals with non-members, we do not reveal the source of complaints when you make contact.
|